This blog is dedicated to discussion of George Bush's "Mystery Bulge" seen in the Presidential Debates. It is also a place to post your links to other relevant information on Bush using an earpiece and receiving "ghost" coaching in the past.... evidence is mounting. Could this be a serious news story? Is Bush wired?

Is the BULGE news? Or will it simply fade away into the lore of pop-culture as a strange mystery never to be solved?

We may never get a real answer to the simple question asked well over a month ago: "What is that BULGE on President Bush's back?". It seems like a proper question to ask, especially when millions of people saw this "Mystery Bulge" in all three Presidential debates. When speculation on possible cheating during the debates arose, and with the possible use of a "coaching" device, the question seemed even more pertinent. As official, ridiculous denials were offered and more "evidence" of the Bulge, devices, and possible theories came into the spotlight, important questions were asked.

We did receive some answers, strange ones, but answers nonetheless. However, strangely absent were hard questions asked by the media. One must ask WHY? Lets retrace the steps in this mystery.

The Bulge was originally spotted during the first Presidential debate, Sept 30, 2004. It was unmistakable, millions of viewers raised their eyebrows after seeing this strange "hump" on President Bush's back. Immediately, internet blogs began to ask the question that the mainstream press would not ask, "What is it?" Theories and conjecture flowed in from around the world, rumors of coaching devices, bulletproof vests, Secret Service devices, medical devices and numerous other theories circulated freely on the "internets".

On Oct. 8th, Dave Lindorff, a writer for Salon.com, picked up the issue and wrote a story on the Bulge that received widespread attention. Suddenly, the Bulge became news... or more specifically, the rumors became news. The story was carried by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, the AP and countless other media outlets. The Bulge rumor and speculation of the President cheating broke into the mainstream.

Nobody expected the Bulge to be seen again, but in the second debate it was again easily visible, despite few shots of the candidates from the rear.

The White House initially denied the Bulge's existence as a "doctored" photo. When it was shown that the Bulge was clearly seen in the raw footage from the debate, the White House backed away from this assertion. The New York Times asked if it was a bulletproof vest ( a logical assumption at the time), and the White House went on-record stating that the President didn't wear such protection during the debates. However, trying to laugh off the topic, Bush/Cheney campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said it was all ridiculous, and mentioned something about Elvis moderating the debates. This was a great sound-bite which was also widely reported in the media, but it only fueled the debate raging on the web.

Several web-sites and blogs (including Bush Wired) were firmly established by this time and created an open forum for the discussion of the Bulge and all the theories. These sites received millions of hits from curious web-surfers. Then, a funny thing happened... the wired theory began to gain credibility as links, tips, photos and information were exchanged between people worldwide. Some other "evidence" popped up supporting theories of medical and Secret Service devices (among others). However, the wired theory continued to be the main subject of speculation.

Several wireless "prompting" devices were found that closely resembled the shape and contour of the Bulge. Numerous people reported that instances of wireless "coaching" were seen in the past, and had been taped by the media. A few Washington journalists stated that it was "widely known" that Bush used a prompting device during big speeches and press conferences. A somewhat dubious tape turned up of President Bush and Jaques Chirac at a press conference in France, where some sort of "ghost voice" was heard on the audio, apparently feeding the President lines. This video was widely circulated and the discussion of coaching expanded. (It was later reported that the Chirac tape could have been the result of an unexplained audio problem, but nobody really knows for sure.)

Dozens of Bulge photos captured during the debates, and even found on the White House website were posted online and seen by millions. Besides pictures of the telltale hump, a photo of an actual wire under the President's tie, seen during the second debate, was captured. The President's odd eye movements and speech patterns were closely analyzed, they too supported the allegation of debate prompting. The President spoke with long pauses and would speak out sentences one at at time.Bush would also stare blankly for a few seconds after being asked a question then answer with a flood of words and "talking points". These observations are consistent with prompting. At one point during the debate Bush even exclaimed, "Let me finish!" although nobody was speaking.

As serious questions were being asked and the circumstantial evidence mounted, many people refused to believe that this could happen.

Yet, the Bulge was real, and very obvious, people everywhere were still wondering what it was. The White House then stated that the Bulge was a simple wrinkle. While nobody accepted this explanation, it was the first time that the Bulge was "officially" admitted to be something.

By Oct. 12th the Bulge media coverage hit a fevered pitch. Late night talk shows devoted several nights to Bulge jokes including a hilarious Top-Ten on Letterman. Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards joked about the Bulge on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, this in itself made news. Newspapers, TV, and radio continued to discuss the bulge rumor, but strangely, nobody seriously asked what it was. Most coverage was in a humorous light, or simply discussed the internet debate... the absence of the media asking real questions about this possibly serious issue became very apparent.

Salon.com published its second story on the Bulge Oct. 13th, the day of the third debate. It showed more unmistakable images of the Bulge and quoted a technical expert, laying out a very good case for further investigation. The possibility of Bush being wired during the debate while still speculative, became even more of a possibility.

Bulge-watchers around the world tuned in for the third debate. There was a contest offering money to the first person to send in a clear Bulge photo on Democrats.com. Nobody thought the Bulge would make a third appearance... but all eyes were on Bush's back. Again, few shots of the president's back were broadcast during the debate, but at the end, when the candidates met, the world was stunned to see the Bulge again. This time it was clear and absolutely not a wrinkle. In fact, it looked as though whatever was under Bush's jacket was still there, but padded, or covered by something thus making an even bigger bulge. Adding fuel to the fire, it appeared that John Kerry tried to give Bush an informal pat-down when the two shook hands. When Kerry's hand reached out to Bush's back, the President quickly moved away.

Internet speculation now turned into widespread demands for further investigation by the press. People wanted to know what was going on! Rev. Jesse Jackson and others publicly called for an investigation of the bulge, whatever it was. The mainstream press began to show an obvious distaste for this story, and apparently would not look into it further. Several poll results were released showing that the majority of viewers who had seen the Bulge thought it was a wireless coaching device. This fact was used by the media as a reason why the issue should NOT be covered. Their reasoning was that the story, true or not, brought out deep feelings of distrust in Americans and coverage of the story would be detrimental to the election process without solid evidence of wrongdoing. This was a somewhat flawed analysis of the situation when one keeps in mind that the media wouldn't investigate the story on its own, or find its own facts.

Farhad Manjoo wrote an exceptional article for Salon.com (Oct. 15th) on the Bulge. The theories were discussed and weighed against each other, the Bulge story was covered in detail. A professional de-bugger who had worked for the White House, stated on-record that coaching and prompting were widely used, not only by the President, but by members of the cabinet! He stated that he not only witnessed such coaching, but had recordings of such instances archived. The world waited for these tapes to be brought forward... and we're still waiting, No further statements were made by this person.

The Bush and Kerry election campaigns were in full momentum as the "evidence" and conjecture continued to snowball. Official discrediting of the Bulge story switched into high gear. While there still was no thorough investigation of the Bulge by the mainstream media, reporters continuously asked, simply, "What is it?". Ken Mehlman, the Bush/Cheney campaign manager was quoted on Meet The Press (Oct 17th), stating that the Bulge was a device used by the President to communicate with Mars, and that the President himself was an ALIEN! Another great sound-bite that received worldwide media coverage, and again only served to fuel the rumors on the internet.

This is where the story takes its first strange turn. The "official" position on the Bulge was simply, that it didn't exist, its just a wrinkle, and the issue should be laughed at. Meanwhile, the mood on the internet again turned from speculation to an outright call-to-arms. Upset because of the lack of media coverage on an issue as important as cheating during the debates, the internet community yet again called on the press to investigate, this time in a relatively organized effort. Web sites and blogs urged viewers to contact the media and provided contact information and form letters addressed to every media outlet imaginable. America demanded an answer.

The letter writing effort resulted in a few new Bulge stories being broadcast on TV, most notably by CNN's Paula Zahn. The segment lasted a few minutes and was surprisingly in-depth, but offered nothing more than continued coverage of the internet speculation, the photos, and web sites devoted to the topic. No independent investigation was offered, and it seemed that CNN did not even contact the White House or the campaign for a statement. All the media would do is ask the familiar question, "What is it?", but no plausible answer was demanded.

In a new development echoing the feelings on the web, Dave Lindorff again covered the Bulge and asked why the story was not being investigated in the media. Why were serious questions not being asked? Lindorff mentioned that the Bulge topic was being covered seriously overseas, even by CNN, but not in America. Previous overseas reports had examined Bush's speech patterns and also concluded that his odd behavior during the debates and in press conferences could be explained by coaching. Statements refuting the "wrinkle" excuse were debunked by a noted tailor. Experts in the spy-ware industry stated that the bulge indeed appeared to be a wireless device.

New information that Bush was also "wired" during his 9/11 Commission testimony came into the limelight. This assertion had been previously covered many months before the debates as the circumstances revolving the 9/11 testimony were "fishy" at best. Coincidentally, at the time it was also reported that it was widely known that Bush used a prompting device. Photos of Bush taken immediately following his press conference clearly showed the Bulge. Later, enhancement would show this Bulge to be very similar to the debate Bulge.

With Bulge speculation still running rampant everywhere, the Bush/Cheney campaign was continually asked about the bulge, but never gave any sort of realistic answer. They were also wasting valuable press conference time rebutting the Bulge, and it appeared that their humorous assertions were not working well. It was time for serious Bulge "spin control". Further explanations of the Bulge being a simple wrinkle were offered. It could be said that the Bulge was now officially recognized as a pesky campaign side-issue. White House Chief of Staff Andrew card told the New York Times that the Bulge was a "poorly tailored suit". Does the President really wear expensive but poorly tailored suits?

Enter the Presidential tailor, Georges de Paris, who worked for every President since Lyndon Johnson. As the Bulge was now being laughed off as a wrinkle, Mr. de Paris was repeatedly asked about his handiwork. On October 20th, The Hill (a newspaper for and about Congress) ran a story quoting Mr. de Paris saying the White House had previously asked him not to comment on the issue. The hapless tailor, perhaps bravely, decided to "take the fall", at the behest of the administration. Mr. de Paris then demonstrated that the Bulge was a wrinkle, or more specifically, a "pucker". Oddly, the photo only proved that the Bulge was NOT a such a wrinkle... the picture could not have looked more different from the 'real' bulge.

The tailor's assertion was immediately debunked on the internet which was again going crazy over the Bulge topic. People wondered if they were supposed to be so gullible as to accept this explanation. Was there a cover-up? Why was this story so strange? Nothing seemed to add up. Meanwhile, the media widely carried the Tailor's story but seemed to accept the ridiculous "pucker" explanation.

In the following week, editorial columnists continued to remark on the story but little fresh Bulge news came forward. Rumors of the Bulge being an "October Surprise" circulated. Online, the main Bulge issue (Bush cheating during the debate) seemed to be drowned out by criticism of the media's non-coverage.

The "internets" continued to be a lively forum for the Bulge. People were still digging deep for answers, more web sites were founded, and all continued to receive amazing hit counts. The story was being ignored by the media but it was absolutely not dead. The comic strip Doonesbury ran several strips about the Bulge, and helped popular interest increase again.

October 26th, the Bulge story takes its second strange twist. With previous explanations of the Bulge as a jacket wrinkle debunked and flatly dismissed online, President Bush himself went on-record. During an interview on Good Morning America, Bush told Charles Gibson that the Bulge was NOT a jacket wrinkle, but a poorly tailored SHIRT! Again, eyebrows were raised and people everywhere scratched their heads in disbelief. The story was carried worldwide in hundreds of newspapers as well as the televised media, the mystery was deemed "solved". On the internet, people asked why Bush would wear the same badly tailored shirt in all 3 debates, especially since it created so much controversy and trouble for his campaign. (For the record, Bush wears expensive, hand sewn shirts that have been personally fitted by Georges de Paris.)

While media criticism hit an all-time high online, nobody knew that the New York Times was working on a big story about the Bulge, written by William Broad and John Schwartz. Tips to Bush Wired stated that this story was serious, thorough, and properly fact-checked, also bringing forward some new information on the matter. The story was set to run six days before the election but was "killed" at the last moment. (Reportedly by Times executive editor Bill Keller.) Apparently, the story was not run because the Times did not want to influence the election. It could also be argued that the Times influenced the election by NOT running the story. People asked, When did the news media begin to dictate to the public what was, and was not, NEWS? Are viewers so easily influenced that they cannot make their own opinions on an issue? What is the Bulge?

The next strange twist in this meandering story came as both Salon.com and Mother Jones published a story a few days before the election offering irrefutable evidence that the Bulge was not a wrinkle. While this news came too late for widespread pre-election coverage, the amazing truth is that the media did not cover this important development at all.

Dr. Robert M. Nelson, a senior researcher and respected photo analyst for NASA and JPL in Pasadena, Ca, applied his expertise on the bulge photos. Dr. Nelson is an international authority on image analysis. His enhanced photos were stunning, but not a big surprise to anyone following the Bulge. What his analysis proved was that the Bulge was absolutely not a question of ill-fitting clothing, but rather, a clearly seen object with a long wire strapped onto the President's back. If this was the smoking gun, someone must have used a silencer.

Dr. Nelson was willing to risk his prestigious scientific reputation on his analysis saying that not only is the bulge an object but it is also consistent with a coaching device. The scientist's story is interesting. Dr. Nelson approached several major news outlets with his photos since early October, nobody would agree to cover the story. The press wasn't about to take a chance on this story, despite ample (though circumstantial) evidence, including the new enhanced photos. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post called Nelson personally, suggesting that he bring the photos to Salon.com because he would have a hard time clearing them with his editors. Reports have surfaced of pressure being applied to Dr. Nelson's higher-ups at JPL forcing Dr. Nelson to keep quiet. The scientist has not made further statements elaborating on the issue, or offered any additional photos.

It was obvious that something wasn't right about the Bulge and the media, and the official bad shirt story.

So, with definitive proof of an OBJECT under Bush's jacket, and the President going on-record and lying about its existence, the press continued to ignore this story. A source told Bush Wired that there were numerous reporters at the Times aghast over the killing of the Bulge story. It was obvious that the Bulge mystery would not be solved before the election. Rumors of a huge story to break after the election made the rounds on the internet.

After the election, despite the rumors of a breaking story, everyone figured the Bulge had died with Bush's re-election. Hits to internet sites dropped steeply, but there was still significant interest in the Bulge. Karl Rove mocked the Bulge by pretending to speak to the President remotely. An occasional mention of the "Mystery of the Bulge" popped up in the press. While the story seemed to stall, it didn't fade away.

And then we have the latest weird twist in the story. Nov. 4th, The Hill published another article on the Bulge. This time they refuted their own wrinkle story, citing Dr. Nelson's analysis. ( I have yet to see anyone question Nelson's results.) However, citing anonymous sources, The Hill claimed that the Bulge was now the strap of a bulletproof vest.

The bulletproof vest theory was dissected in detail in the early days of the Bulge. This latest excuse for the Bulge is almost as laughable as their story on the wrinkle. Nobody has been able to show any bulletproof vest that would create a hump or object as it was detailed in Dr. Nelsons photos. The long WIRE also observed doesn't help for a good match with vests. Further, President Bush only appeared to wear this "vest" at debates, testimony, important press conferences, and speeches. He didn't appear to wear this certain bulletproof vest in public or while campaigning. There was no bulge seen when Bush took his jacket off during campaign stumping.

The New York Times again covered the Bulge on Nov. 8th. They proclaimed that the tailor was "off the hook" for the Bulge. Georges de Paris, apparently devastated by criticism of his life's work, decided that HE THOUGHT the Bulge was a bulletproof vest as well, and... so it was. Back to the bulletproof vest, except for one problem, the White House sticks to its original story that the President did not wear a vest at the debates. Meanwhile, Karl Rove has recently been quoted as saying that the Bulge doesn't exist at all.

Still no investigation by the media, and the press has yet to ask any serious questions about the Bulge.

And so the Bulge story stands, after doing a complete circle, the Bulge now fades away, back into the depths of the internet. Rumors still persist of "big news, breaking at any moment". Some have said that this story is bigger than Watergate, others wonder why anyone still cares. Most Bulge sites have shut down or no longer post regularly. The story again seems to have died and replaced by debate raging on the web over election results.

This story has spoken volumes about how the media operates in America. It raises questions about about the debates, the election, and the President. The Bulge speaks about the power of the internet and it's new role in our culture. But in the end, all we are left with is the original question, "What is that BULGE on President Bush's back?"

Perhaps we'll never know.

11/11/04

Recent news posts 11/14/04:
• -->NEW BULGE ARTICLE: An excellent, in-depth, discussion of the Bulge. From FREEZERBOX.COM • --> THE NEW YORK TIMES covers this story again, and proclaims that the tailor, Georges de Paris, is "off the hook" and not responsible for the pesky bulge. It was nice that the hapless tailor tried to take the fall, but his theory didn't hold water. Mr. de Paris is "devastated" by all the fuss. The above artricle also refutes the recent story by THE HILL that the bulge was simply a bulletproof vest, but makes no mention of the NASA analysis.
• --> "Nothing was under his jacket,". This statement comes from none other than Karl Rove, in a new AP story.
• --> Karl Rove shows his love for mocking the Bulge (from Newsweek).
• --> Elisabeth Bumiller's story in the International Herald Tribune
• --> Dan Froomkin's BULGE WATCH Section in the White House Briefing column (Washington Post). Discusses recent bulge news (all the way at the bottom).

47 Comments:

Thank you for keeping this alive. I think the drop in comments is due to the discouraging turn of events in the election. I am disappointed in the media, although, I can understand a bit. Karl Rove has the ability to instill fear in the media. He can ruin someone's life with just a few phone calls. This administration is the most frightening to date. People are still stunned at the thought of four more years. We are all hoping that America can survive. I have been saying for years that Bush was wired, everyone thought I was insane, I was hoping to be vindicated. Ya never know, it could all fall apart for this administration, Karma is Karma. And, as my Mother used to say, " Cheaters never prosper". Let's hope.

Thank you for your superb summary of what went on with bulge and the media's failure to adequately investigate it. It is frightening that people don't seem upset that this President lies and cheats, and worse, that he is so incompetent that he needs a prompter at a debate with a truly intelligent rival. Of course the disaster of Bush's victory (if it was one) has pushed interest in the bulge to the side. Most of us are in shock that so many in our country were so foolish as to support this incompetent man who has already made such a mess of our country and now has 4 more years to do further damage. We just need to step up and fight him every inch of the way. Peace. Lalinda

I still think it is a CLASSIFIED security issue. Not a matter of national security, as some have said, but for the security of the Office of President. Not only for Bush, but for any President. If someone wanted to kill the President, such knowledge would unfairly improve the odds. And besides, the whole issue has been somewhat humorous from the beginning. None of it really matters, except to Democrats who just want to get rid of Bush for no good reason.

Thanks you all for the positive feedback on the Bulge History post. Its still a work in-progress, and remains a bit rough. I'll add supporting text links as I get to it, and there are a few details I left out. (thanks for the input e-mails). If anyone has any corrections or other important facts in this story that i omitted, please let me know by posting, or send me a note at: c.shaw@mac.com

I'm glad people are still looking at this story. The bulge is perhaps the tip of a bigger iceburg, and remains somewhat tied to the debate on election fraud and other campaign hijinks. For more on the election visit: www.cannonfire.blogspot.com for all the latest news.

Humorous, no good reason? What color is the sky in your world? You think the possibility that the president would cheat at a national debate, is humorous? You say no good reason, do you live under a rock? The death and suffering in Iraq, the fact we have to borrow money from other countries just to pay America's bills, the deficit, is no good reason? Do some homework before you make ignorant comments.

You talk about Iraq. There would be even more death and suffering over there under the dictatorship of Saddam, to even more innocent Iraqi people, if we didn't do what we did and weren't still there. The only other fighting there, is brought on by rebels who don't want freedom for the Iraqis. We have not attacked anyone needlessly and only for defense.

You talk about the deficit. This country has operated under a deficit for as long as I can remember (I just turned 50). Every country borrows money from each other. It's part of the economy. A large part of this country's indebtedness is because of money promised to other countries through loans, etc.

About the "bulge". I noticed that now days every newscaster who is on the air uses a wireless earphone monitor. If Bush was using one of these, I'll bet that Kerry was, too. Besides, I never saw monitor speakers on the stage, so they had to be using something. They never got the same kind of shots of Kerry as they did Bush. With all of the other answers, there are two many variables and options other than "cheating".Those debates are as serious as you all think. They aren't like academic debates. Both Bush and Kerry had and took notes the whole time. It is more of a venue to let the people know how they stand on the issues, rather than to see who is the best speaker or debater.There have been a lot of good presidents that weren't good speakers. IF Bush was prompted, according to the polls, which you all put so much faith in, it didn't do any good.

You all can have your websites and blogs, but nothing will go any farther, until there is more concrete evidence than doctored up pictures and video clips. It will only breed contempt among yourselves, instead of moving on to more important things. Besides, IF KERRY HAD WON THE ELECTION, WOULD ALL THIS NONSENSE STLL BE GOING ON. There are too many different answers to the mystery of the bulge to continue all this.

After reading several articles on these blogs, I have some comments from the other side of the story.

The registered party ratio may have been different from actual results because: 1. The ratios come from the way people voted in the primaries. My actual voter registration doesn't show any reference to parties. Just because someone picks a party's ballot, doesn't mean they have to vote for that party in all races. 2. There are many voters, including myself, that do not always vote in the primaries, but do vote in the general elections; maybe 30 to 50% of voters.

I would think that the computers used in the elections would be a lot more secure than the average Windows PC. They probably used firewalls, encryption, password protected files/drives, and kept in secure areas where only the supervisors and top officials had access. It would not be as easy to hack as depicted in that article.

Then the story about the exit polls and the use of paper ballots. The exit polls aren't as accurate as some of you think. I watched part of 4 different networks. All of which showed different exit poll results. ABC and NBC mostly favored Kerry until about 3/4 way through the night, while CBS and CNN mostly favored Bush most of the night. The writer mentioned "spoilage" which would favor Kerry. Does that mean Democrats are the only ones who have problems voting? Doesn't make sense to me.

Seems to me that the Democrats are still trying to discredit President Bush and steal an honest election.You all would try anything. IT'S OVER.

7:43 There are dictatorships all over the world that kill, torture and impose atrocities on their people, we do nothing because there is no oil in those areas of the world. War would not be profitable. Did Saddam attack us? He did not. In regards to the deficit, were you in another country in 2000? There was almost a 3 trillion dollar surplus when Mr. Bush was annointed, it's gone now. And you are correct that we loan money to other countries, and yes, they are supposed to pay us back. Maybe you are talking about the over $2 Billion dollars the first George HW Bush loaned to Saddam Hussein back in 1989, a loan that Hussein defaulted on, U.S. Taxpayers had to pay the tab on that one. By the way, you seem to know everything, what happened to the 6 Billion American dollars that our soldiers recovered the day Bagdhad fell? Maybe it's in someone's barn in Crawford Texas.

People say that this "war" is not valid because WMDs were not found in Iraq. That's because they were moved out of the country or moved and buried in underground bunkers by blowing up the entrances, so they could go back and dig them back out. I saw on non-US broadcasts, videotape of convoys of huge trucks leaving Saddam's weapons plants before the UN inspectors got there. Where were they going? We have been involved in battles in other countries, in the name of peace, that are not as publicized as Iraq. I recall seeing that the money the soldiers found was given to Iraq for the new government to rebuild the country.

I don't think the deficit can be blamed entirely on President Bush, because everything has to go through Congress first. The war on terror (and in Iraq) has cost a lot of money that wasn't budgeted, both domestic and abroad. Up until the UN inspectors said they didn't find WMDs (they weren't looking in the right places), all of Congress was all for everything going on. It has been proven that Saddam was linked to Osama and partially funded has operations. So, indirectly, yes, Saddam DID attack us. Besides all that, Bush's tax plan put a lot of tax money back into the hands of all taxpayers (not just people making over $200K). I, myself, have made more money (around $20K a year) and have gotten more refunds the last four years than I can remember. Do you all really think Kerry could have funded his programs without raising taxes of everybody? Would he raise taxes only on over $200K earners (including himself and all his attorney friends)? I think not.Freedom of speech goes both ways. If you all thought you could put forth these accusations wihout rebuttal, your wrong. Someone's comments are not "ignorant" because the views expressed are different from yours.

I love rebuttal arguments, I really appreciate it when the person rebutting is informed, not ignorant of FACTS. You sound like you appreciate facts, so please go to GOOGLE and type in IRAQGATE and SALEM BIN LADEN. I believe you will be suprised at the results. All the information in almost all the links is available through FOIA, just in case you might want to do some more research. You forgot to defend George HW Bush and his loan to Hussein in 1989. I'm sure you'll get around to it. Oh, and PLEASE, since you know where the Pentagon, CIA and everybody else should be looking for WMD, call them and show them where they are. Isn't freedom of speech great? P.S. If you do a search on Iraqgate and Salem bin Laden, you might want to google Prescott Bush and Hitler, just a thought.

I have not posted any DOCTORED photos of the bulge, all the photos posted in the Bush Wired photo gallery (except for the clearly labeled enhancements) were from screen captures. The Bulge, whatever it is, is clearly seen during the debates... see it yourself on the CSPAN site, don't take my word. While you are there, you may wish to reconsider your assertions that Bush busily wrote notes during the debates, He did not... (admittedly, he did do a bit of note-taking in the third debate)... in fact, he usually stared blankly while he was asked questions, or while Kerry spoke.

Kerry was never seen with a Bulge, only Bush. But to be fair, there were several reports of Clinton wearing an earpiece... I have said before that I actually have no problem with Bush wearing a prompter during speeches and press conferences, it does seem to be standard practice these days. I DO have a problem with the possibility of wearing such a device in debates or testimony.

I also have a problem with lying to the public about the source of the Bulge... if its no big deal then I would expect a rational answer to the question. Unfortuantely the mainstream press doesn't hold these high standards.

I am no fan of Bush, thats certain, but I assure you that I would jump all over a story involving ANY President, Democrat or Republican, who may have cheated during a debate or who gave coached testimony at the 9/11 hearings. This goes far beyond partisan politics.

As far as Iraq goes... I know there isn't a lot of common ground here between Republicans and Democrats and I don't want to push the issue much further, but I do offer this...

It was the Bush Administration's DOCTORED PHOTOS offered to the UN, and their MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS on WMDs that led us into this war. It makes no difference if you support the Iraq War or not... this deception is not disputed by anyone. Bush may have relied on bad intelligence, but he did not tell the real facts on the road to war.

Your other facts in support of this war are gravely flawed. If I'm wrong feel free to post some links and I'll gladly look at the info and keep an open mind. I'm also sure others would check it out as well.

Further, your facts about Iraq are far more circumstantial than any arguement I have heard about the Bulge being a prompting device.

Last, you mention that "You all can have your websites and blogs" and "Freedom of speech goes both ways"... well ,I for one think you should start your own blog... you seem to have a lot to say... and afterall, its free.

I have also noticed that you have posted the EXACT SAME POSTS on this site and elsewhere. Feel free to join the discussion... simply posting previously written comments is not what this forum is about... if thats all you want to do, again, start your own blog!

It's hardly worth arguing with someone like that person above who still believes there were/are WMD's in Iraq and Saddam financed Osama. Oh, and I forgot, we're the "good guys" in Iraq. So, why does the population there hate us and call us occupiers? Maybe it has something to do with the tens of thousands of people we've killed and maimed, many of whom were children. No one says Saddam was a good guy, but Iraqis don't want their people and cities destroyed either. People who voted for Bush did so out of Faith because he thinks he has a direct line to God. Well, there are alot of Christians out here who do NOT think he is a man of God but acutally quite evil. If Jesus were here he'd vote Democratic because he always supported the downtrodden not the elites like Bush does. Hang on for four years, we'll beat these bad guys in the end.

After receiving a ton of of nasty e-mails since starting this site, most accusing me of lying about the Bulge, or something I wrote... perhaps you'll be kind enough to enlighten me as to WHICH lie you are referring to?

There are many kinds of Christians and most are sensible and do not believe that Bush speaks directly to God. WOW! maybe thats what the bulge is used for, an encripted, wireless, direct line to our heavenly Father, it makes so much more sense now.

I saw a show today on Christian TV that discussed the Scott Peterson conviction. They went so far as to say that if Peterson gets the death penalty, even Jesus would pull the switch.

Thats twisted and insane. I truly hope most Americans don't believe that type of brainwashed crap. It really reminds me of the Taliban.

After my rather lengthy rebuttal to the anonymous poster writing about Iraq and other issues, I received an e-mail from a reader admonishing me for using a nasty tone.

Let me be clear, ANY comments to this site are cheerfully accepted and welcome. I did not mean to give the impression that differing viewpoints would not be accepted here.

In my own defense, I had read one of the posts previously, not only on Bush Wired, but on another site. I simply wanted this person to make relevant posts, and not to write short dissertations on his(?) views and post them on all "liberal" blogs regardless of topic.

back on topic. found at the boston herald forum. republican bulge-haters jumped all over a poster for posting the bulge story. since there seems to be a mix of political views here i wanted to post this.

Let me pose these questions to conservatives:

- If ANY President wore a "coaching" device in the debates, is this a serious issue? - If ANY President wore such a device during congressional testimony is THAT an important issue?- Would your view change if we were specifically referring to George Bush?

I voted for Bush and I love this site. eveyone in my office voted for bush and we all laugh about this site everyday. we might be bored but you guys are losers with nothing better to do. thats the funnyest joke of all. to answer the questions yes its important. yes the second is important. no my mind would not change. the problem with your story is that you have nothing except for fuzzy pictures and nameless people giving you a dumb conspiracy theory. show me the real evidence and i might change my mind. its a vest and who cares if the white house doesnt want to tell you about it.

i thought the iraq posts were good and worth more to debate than the bulge. Saddam and Osama did work together, google it and you will see. dont be fooled by the liberal media.

You begin making an almost valid point (yes, the truth is NOBODY knows, you included). We could all be wrong. After reading the post and seeing the pictures I cant believe you wouldn't wonder whats up with the bulge. But you go out with a fully refuted, proven, incorrect statement... and then mention the liberal media HA! You watch too much Fox news. It sounds so ignorant.

What liberal media are YOU talking about? If the media printed all it knows about President Bush, his father and grandfather, it would make even the most right wing conservative shudder. A Tennesee judge is asked by the DOJ (talk about the fox guarding the hen house) to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system. He finds a list of 600 people of Hussein's, Osama is on it, the article also says, "it does not prove they engaged together in ANY act of terrorism against the U.S.". By the way, I am sure on that list was George H.W. Bush. Saddam knows him too, Bush "loaned" Saddam a lot of money. Did this poster also go down to the link on the same google page? Doubt it. On the health & energy link, there is a story that shows that Reagan/Bush gave Osama his "seed" money to start the Taliban. It also mentions the billions to Iraq, and George HW good friend Noriega, they used to work together at the CIA.George is wired, because he has an IQ of 91( I won't mention which primate has the same IQ) and he can't put more than 3-5 words together at one time, he has admitted he doesn't read, and he has a poor memory, he can't even remember when he said, Osama bin Laden? I don't even think about him, he doesn't concern me very much. He was at one of his few and far between press conferences.

First of all, I want to thank the posters who supported the opposite views. Yes, I have repeated information from other posts. But it was in response to other repeated information. Icone, if anyone repeated information, it has been you. The post to which this comment is attached is just a repeat of information that has been discussed over and over for about six weeks. My responses were to your comments about the bulge and voter fraud. Since your views have been repeated so much, isn't it fair that the opposite view be repeated also. I did not bring up the topic of Iraq, the deficit, etc. I just responded to it. No, I do not know where the WMDs are now. But, I do know that they WERE there, because Saddam used them on his own people. Once the weapons may have been moved out of the country, they couldn't be used as evidence.

Bush won the election in 2000, and the Democrats blamed to on faulty punch card machines in Florida, so the punch card machines were eliminated. Bush won this election, and the Democrats again blame the new voting machines and possible tampering. It will never end. If there was real evidence of voter fraud, something would have been done before now.

About six weeks ago, you all put forth these accusations of "cheating" in the debates, which is absurd. You have tried to force it into the media to try to sway public opinion but the media didn't fall for these tactics. Michael Moore tried to sway public opinion with his movie of a bunch of lies. No network would broadcast his movie before the election, so where is he now? Nobody knows.

I only started coming here because it was mentioned for one day on the Netscape homepage and I thought it might be interesting. Once here, I saw how ridiculous it was, and come back just to see how far you all will go.I really do not have time to waste on extensive research on such a useless cause. I have better things to do with my life. My comments have been based on public knowledge, and not special research. So, since it is seemingly unwanted, I may not be posting here again. You all can carry this thing for as long as you want, but it won't do any good, and will only breed contempt amoung the Democrats who take it serious. But, remember, there are two sides to every story.

By public knowledge, you must be talking about FOX News. Nuf said. As for the hanging chads, it was the Supreme Court who annointed the current president, not paper ballots. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya. Ignorance is bliss.

Well said, excellent comment. Yes, I AM guilty as charged I have repeated some of my arguements several times... but its my blog, and I like to sum-up and consolidate the issues from time to time. I think I have brought forth reasonably fair coverage of this story. I have discussed not only allegations of cheating and other theories, but also less sinister bulge explanations. If you read the blog thoroughly, there is very little mention of partisan politics, Republicans/Democrats, or blatant Bush-bashing. Nowhere will you find me commenting that this issue should be used as election fodder. My intention in creating this site was not to disrespect the President, but to simply ask, "WHAT IS THE BULGE?".

Perhaps repeating myself, if the Bulge was not anything questionable, why wouldn't the White House, the Campaign, and other "official" sources simply ANSWER THE QUESTION? Why have we all been subjected to numerous, ludicrous explanations, baltant untruths, and official backpeddaling? Most of my ire has also revolved around questioning the media for not demanding a REAL answer to the question. A simple answer would have put this topic to bed long ago.

Only recently did I fully jump on the "wired theory" bandwagon... everything seems to point towards this in my view. I was widely quoted earlier stating that I thought that the Bulge was actually a Secret Service device. It may be. It was the Presidents own explanation of the Bulge coupled with the NASA scientists analysis that made me decide that there was something VERY WRONG with the Bulge... thats just my opinion.

Concerning your comments... they ARE appreciated and welcome, I very much enjoy the dialogue with those on "the other side". We need more of this in America, we need to find common ground between our views, and we all need to MOVE FORWARD. Having a forum where only one view is expressed is self-serving and doesn't help anything in the bigger picture.

If it was up to me, I would hope that all posters to this site would try to look at the larger issues here, and get less tangled up in the minutia and details that will never be fully agreed upon.

Concerning the Bulge... is it not appropriate to ask "the question", especially with all the different explanations? Should the press ask these questions and demand answers? Who's job is it to look into these issues? Lets not forget that Watergte began with a humorous story about a botched burglary, it was the press that asked hard questions and ultimately did an important service for our country.

Concerning the election... Yes, it appears that Bush won. I doubt it will be officially contested, and I agree that there is a certain amount of "crying over spilled milk" here. However, there are some important inconsistencies with the election results that should not be overlooked. Perhaps its not a big Republican conspiracy, but we should all be committed to having a straight forward election process, and look at the existing problems and try to fix anything broken in the system. This would benefit EVERYONE, and is crucial to our democracy. Peoples votes deserve to be noted and counted in full. Our system is not perfect, we should always strive to improve it.

Concerning Iraq... (I know you didn't bring the topic up) Anyone wanting to jump into this discussion should be prepared for a heavy response regardless of your views. I visit many blogs of all political slants... what amazes me is that both sides continue to argue over "facts" without offering further information to back their views up, and people continue to bash each other out of spite. There is always a certain feeling of "if they did it, so can we". Two wrongs don't make a right.

This is a great place to post your links for supporting evidence on views... people will look at them, and perhaps somewhere along the line, these issues will be resolved.

The most important thing is that free speech is alive and well on the web. Everyone should be comitted to forming their own opinions, and respect others views... but continue to ask questions when thing dont add up.

I am moving the following comment posted elsewhere on Bush Wired to this thread. Its from "Brad Menfil", who some of you may remember from the earlier days of the Bulge. His posts on the Portland Indymedia site were the subject of heated debate. Some questioned if Brad menfil was a hoax, others took his comments more seriously. Some of what he said added up, some did not. His story and the subsequent coverage of his comments are quite interesting. But like the bulge nothing was ever conclusively figured out. We all await "Brad Menfil" to post some concrete info that can be checked out, and explain why he is privvy to such important information. -Icone/Bush Wired______________________Posted by: Brad MenfilBrad Menfil is not my real name. I work for the RNC. I fear reprisals if I'm found out.

The truth about this election is this: Florida and Ohio had to go for Bush in order for him to "win" the election. In reality he lost both states. In fact, he did not even win the popular vote. He lost the national popular vote by at least 1,750,000. This shows you the scale of the fraud.

The exit polls were not wrong. Kerry was the clear winner, but victory was snatched from him.

Florida first. The 200,000+ margin of victory for Bush made this state uncontestable. Everybody assumes that even with some fraud, Kerry could never have made up the difference in a recount. But Kerry actually won by about 750,000 votes. The numbers were changed by a computer program (in both electronic and scan-tron voting systems) called "KerryLite." "KerryLite" of course is not actual name of the program. The actual name is 11-5-18-18 etc. For additional encryption, the numbers were jumbled but I'm not sure in which order. The numbers replace the letters of the alphabet. For example, K is the eleventh letter of the alphabet.

So the if-then statement goes something like this: "if total true Kerry>total true Bush, Bush x 1.04x (.04 is a random number)(total true Kerry), total true Bush". The second part of the equation takes the total number of votes cast and subtracts the new Bush total, subtracts the third party totals and leaves the rest for Kerry.

Sometimes the program would also reduce third party votes and award them to Bush. And even where Bush legitimately won, he was still awarded additional votes. The big Democratic counties (Broward for example) went to Kerry because it had to appear that everything was on the up and up. It's interesting to see this unfold. Does anybody wonder why the Republican counties were mostly counted after the Democratic counties? You should wonder, and also know that this was no accident. The Bush team had to make up the votes as the night went on.

In Ohio, computer voting fraud, vote tossing and voter suppression were the main methods. Vote tossing was simply the removal of Kerry votes and some third party votes. In some areas, the Bush vs. Kerry votes were absurd. Nine to one, eight to two.

Voter suppression took the form of making voters stand in four hour long lines. This of course took place in Democratic areas. The simplest thing to do was to have too few voting machines. Sometimes that's all it takes. People eventually lose patience and leave without casting a vote.

In other states such as New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry's leads evaporated very quickly once the polls were shut down. Kerry only won New Hampshire, but barely. As it turned out, the lead was 6% for Kerry in that state and not enough fraudulant activity took place to flip the state to Bush.

So this will all come out and be known to everyone. Nothing this massive can be kept a secret. You're already beginning to see these "irregularities" and the wisper will become a roar.

Well said Icone. I usually don't agree with much that you put forward. I voted Bush but only because I hate Kerry, there wasn't much room for a real choice in this election.

Is it ok for a country to invade another for its own security? Is this a larger issue? I know the other side is going to bring up Iran and North Korea, but can't we all admit that Saddam's Iraq was a threat? WMDs or not, Iraq was not playing by the rules and not only attacked the US many times in no fly zones, but Saddam also tried to assasinate the first president Bush. These are FACTS and I think they support a threat to America. I agree that the WMD arguement was total bullshit, but still Saddam had to go.

Well, one more, then I'm through. No, Theresa, I don't even watch Fox News, except maybe the local version at 10:00 on the local station, which is actually done by another network here. I generally watch CBS local and national news. Other than that, my information comes from all other sources combined, including talking among friends, coworkers, and family. During the 2000 election, the Supreme Court did not annoint President Bush. All through the recounts, Bush still held enough lead to win Florida and the election. Only after this was realized, did the Court have the recount discontinued. Besides, according to the Democrat story, it seems that only Democrats have had problems voting in both elections. Doesn't that tell you something?

Yes the fact that Democrats are the only ones having problems with the election results in states where the election is run by Republicans DOES SAY SOMETHING! It says something is wrong. Why are all the exit polls and voting irregularities hurting the Democrats? Shouldnt the margins of error dictate that irregularities go BOTH ways? Why were the exit polls correct in states with a papertrail but so wrong in places without?

they are recounting in ohio and peoples votes are being thrown out for stupid reasons. this is wrong. bush won but this is wrong. does anyone know what would happen if kerry actally won? isnt it too late?

Either "Brad" is dreaming, or a fiction writer, or just trying to pull everyone's leg. There is no way one program distributed nationally and under such security to be modified that many ways without being detected. Pure speculation.

Yet, while it may be understandable for national journalists to go easy on the Bushes, that pattern over the years has eroded public confidence in the media’s fairness and integrity. Millions of Americans now flatly don’t trust the national news media to tell the truth when the Bushes are involved. That perception, in turn, has led rank-and-file Americans to step forward via Web sites to lend whatever knowledge and expertise they have to investigate this powerful family. As amateurs, these Americans are sure to make mistakes or jump to conclusions that aren’t well supported by facts. But the big media has no moral foundation upon which to criticize these shortcomings by common citizens. If the professional journalists focused more on doing their jobs, rather than protecting their careers, the American people would be far better served.

Brad has said he has inside info on may important topics and they all end nowhere. He must be Karl Rove or the head of the CIA or something to have access to all that info. He knows the secret to the bulge, the secret to election fraud, and probably knows the secret to the Kennedy assasination. He loves to tip off the world because he is "one of us" but his tips never help solve any issue.

The election commissions are not run by certain parties, but by non-partisan committees composed of people from all parties. It is ridiculous to think that one party can control the way votes are recorded.It's funny that the party doing the complainiing is the one always losing votes. The exit polls can be wrong, simply by who the pollsters target to interview.

Election 2000, who was Katherine Harris?Electon 2004, who is Ken Blackwell?

Both serve(d) as Secratary Of State in their homestates and are ultimately responsible for the election results. Both are very partisan republicans. Both have made some strange decisions about the vote counts, both have thrown out vast amounts of ballots that benefitted republicans.

Back to the "bulge" question. "What is the bulge?" is not the important question. What is important is the alleged behavior by Mr. Bush. If he cheated in the debates or is so controlled and/or incompetent that he needs to be prompted during some appearance then that rises to a tragically important issue. The physical means used is simply important evidence. The media seem fixated on the means and not the deeed. They fail to ask the straight-forward question: "was he assisted in any way during the debates or 9/11 testimony?"

Mr. Cheney has apparently never been seen with a similar device. I can't imagine this administration protecting him any less than Mr. Bush. That is a blow for any security explanations for the bulge.

Someone earlier posed a question, would we still be after this story if Kerry had been elected? The answer is, yes! If for no other reason than to force the media to do their job. There is a story here, and it needs to be told. As for the exit polls, an MIT study this week, said that for the exit polls to be incorrect would be a 250 million to one shot. I also agree with the 6:14 poster, Brad is a red herring. I do believe all will be revealed.

Yeah, the Democrats losing their votes to "spoilage", etc, may have to do with the fact that a lot of them not having the ability to administer their vote properly. Proof was with the punch card ballots in Florida in 2000. Now they are blaming the new machines.What next?

My guess why Cheney and probabily Kerry hasn't been "seen" with a "bulge" is quite simply something known as "angle of view". Good photographers know all about it. Directors know about it, too. In the first debate there were a lot more back views of Bush than of Kerry. I don't recall any back views of Chaney. It's all a matter of perception.

The only reason any of us saw the Bulge at all is because FOX, (who provided the pool video of the debates) filmed the candidates from the rear. James Baker's debate rules specifically stipulated that there would be no shots from the rear. Thanks for FOX for not following the rules!

This is one of the first strange twists in the Bulge story, and perhaps one of the first reasons why some people began to wonder about the bulge. There are some other odd things in Baker's debate rules which have been the subject of much speculation, and in fact, help support the "wired" theory.

Kerry was looked at closely in footage of all 3 debates, he was never seen with an obvious bulge as Bush was... there have been numerous camera angles studied. However, there HAVE been reports that Kerry had a bulge as well...

I keep my offer open to post any photo of Kerry with the Bulge for fair and balanced coverage of this story, and for comparison. If you have seen a Kerry bulge send it to me or post a link! Despite several promises to send a Kerry Bulge nobody has followed through.

There is a very recent series of photos of Bush from behind. I'm not that good at interpreting the Bulge pics, so I'm posting this link for others who might be interested in a closer look! http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=bush+secret+service&ei=UTF-8&c=news_photos

Help! I am lost. I was searching for computer help and somehow ended up here. How that happened I don't know, however I do like your Blog a lot. Would you mind if I add your Blog to my favorites page so others can visit?

The best place to learn Chinese is in China. However, we understand that it isn't always possible to move here to learn Chinese language. The next best thing is to study with our experienced teachers in a virtual classroom. Online students enjoy the same excellent way of Chinese language class and custom designed courseware that we provide for our face to face clients.